now I know there is no way I would vote for this man

[2shoes]

dipstick that he is

2Shoes: 'what is the difference?'

The difference is what we've been debating throughout this thread: parental choice !!!

With a tragic accident, there is no choice involved, it just happens.

And in fact, parental choice exists even after birth; I have read about cases where a baby was born disabled and the parents simply refused to take him/her home. Moreover, at my ds's old pre-school, my ds's key worker's mum fostered SN babies/children and was at that time fostering a boy with progeria: this boy's parents had told their friends that the baby had died in hospital . Even this is a form of parental choice but the baby stays alive and cared for. Admittedly, choosing this particular option is probably not often pursued although in places like Germany, there are drop-off points where women can leave their unwanted babies, NT or otherwise, so I'm guessing such 'abandonment' stories do occur for reasons other than disability.

riven: 'It should be one law FOR ALL.'

But we don't live in a world where disability is equal to non-disability and unless that ever changes, then our abortion laws will remain the same. How do you think people (who would otherwise terminate) could be made to accept a pregnancy that will result in a severely disabled child?

Hmm, this reminds me of listening to two friends the other day discussing whether or not they would abort a Downs baby. I was horrified and pointed out that my DD's SN hadn't been apparent until she was 2 or 3 (at which point they said "Yes, but she'll get better won't she..." which shows how they had completely misunderstood her problems because there's no guarantee although outlook is good), but I was also horrified that they could even think of aborting a baby simply because they had Downs. Perhaps I know more about it than them because I used to know a lot of DS kids. However, I suspect that theory and practice are often quite different. IME most people talk in theory about how they wouldn't want a disabled child, and then when it happens they just get on with it! I find the whole issue very tricky...abortions full stop, NT or disabled, but I also don't believe in forcing my opinions on other people.

I'm pro choice but I couldn't justify terminating a pregnancy after 24 weeks unless it was to save the life of the mother or perhaps 1 or 2 other possible exceptions, there must be limits somewhere.

I can't understand how killing a 39 week old could be considered as anything other than murder.

Whose idea was it anyway to raise the ceiling on abortions for disabled babies? When did that law come into force, has it always been like that?

By MannyMoeAndJack on Wed 20-Aug-08 19:51:19
2Shoes: 'what is the difference?'

The difference is what we've been debating throughout this thread: parental choice !!!

what happened to mine then?

But if your dc suffered an accident/birth trauma, then you had no choice over that.

and if your baby happenes to have a disabilitie then you have no choice in that. so...
there is no choice you have the baby.

You cannot control for every eventuality. When the baby is inside its mother, our laws permit the mother to terminate the pregnancy up to 39wks if that baby is disabled and she wishes to do so (pro-choice). However, the mother does not choose for her baby to experience birth trauma, any more than she would choose for her toddler to be run over by a bus and to be left disabled.

I understand that.
at the end of the day, i think we are both reading from the same card.

to abort a viable baby because the parents decide that they don't want a disabeld child is wrong.

'there is no choice you have the baby.'

I don't think it can be as clear cut as this. If you are the one who is going to be forced into providing life-long care for a dependent child/adult, then you should have the right to say no.

but you told me just now that if the baby is damaged at birth, you have to get on with it. considering you could be just talking about a couple of weeks difference in time. I for the life of me can't see the difference.

Why? Not your life to discard.

Some things happen and you just have to get on with them. Doesn't mean you should have a choice at other times.

Abortion is tinkering with nature. So, scrap the tinkering that makes abortion possible (i.e. modern medicine) to ensure that all babies are born (NT, disabled and birth traumatise babies), then, because modern medicine has been scrapped, only those babies strong enough to survive will do so. That is my solution to the 39wk law. No more tinkering with nature either before birth or after birth.

Let nature decide as she has done for millennia, then there would be no need for this debate.

the only way you can be sure you will not have a disabled baby is not to get pregnant.

I have 3 children.

All would have been classed as NT.

2 have had problems. We are dealing with them. They are my kids, I love them and I will fight tooth and nail for them. Wouldn't change a thing.

And the one time I was given notice my child could have a problem I was even more determined to have him contrary to what others thought.

We all feel differently and I used to feel totally differently about terminations before I got pregnant.

'the only way you can be sure you will not have a disabled baby is not to get pregnant.'

Well there is no guarantee but given that Homo has existed for upwards of 2.5 million years, then it's a safe bet that enough fit individuals are born to perpetuate the species, otherwise we most certainly wouldn't be having this debate!

That doesn't work though Manny- because for example you can currently terminate a child with DS at 39 weeks. And that child would be born and would survive and these days would even be educated so grow up with (probably) moderate learning difficulties.

The law isn't confined to babies who would previously not have made it/survived.

If the DS child survives, then good - he/she passes the test of nature.

BUt they're not going to survive an abortion!

at 39 weeks.